Your remark was general and reflective of what others believe *as well*.
It was about the aesthetic appeal of a Rolex to me, and about *my perception* of the appeal of a Rolex to others.
Suggestion: Don't use "that is a fact" when defending an opinion.
I appreciate the suggestion, but you accused me of representing my opinions as fact, and I wanted to emphasize that the only thing I was representing as a fact was that I held those opinions.
You assert your *opinion* that Rolex's *to you* are overpriced and unappealing
Yes, I asserted that they are unappealing to me, but I never said they were overpriced. In fact, by saying your investment advice may be good, I conceded they were priced appropriately. I did say that they were expensive, and since it is more than 10 times the cost of the Apple watch it was compared to, that is accurate.
It's not overpriced if it holds or gains in value, or as a collector's item, but it's uglier to me, and does less than the Apple watch. So, feel free to indulge your collector's hobby, or your investment endeavors, but I buy a watch for its looks and its functions, and on those counts, the Rolex is not in the same ball park.
by mocking terms I referenced as to my one timepiece when that "jargon" is used throughout the industry.
My original comment was that it was less aesthetically appealing (which is implicitly an opinion) and it does less, which is true. When I elaborated, I speculated on what others find appealing about it, and your use of jargon to defend the appeal served to validate my speculations.
It would be tantamount to dismissing Apple's "jargon" as their products are "just flash" and nothing more
If I had used Apple jargon to defend the Apple watch, you'd have a point. But I didn't.